dgswaim

Husserl on the natural sciences. Husserl on the humanities. Husserl on mathematical concepts. Talk about a capacious mind. I wish I could do philosophy the way he did philosophy.

If this is to imply that someone like Ricouer lacks rigor in his work generally, then I would have to question whether you've actually read his work. If you mean that the kind of rigor seemingly manifest in his work is qualitatively different than the kind manifest in whatever analytic thinker you uphold as exemplary, then you might be right. But so what? I see no reason why analytic philosophy... whatever that means... fully exhausts the proper definition of philosophy (and I say this as one working primarily in the analytic tradition, as has been mentioned).

Yes. Broadly speaking I would tend to agree that there are stylistic differences. But I see no reason why this should mean that analytic philosophy should ignore the contributions of the continental tradition, and vise versa. I think the continental tradition has much to learn (in terms of writing, especially) from the Anglo-analytic school. Continentals could stand to use more formal logic and to write more clearly in general. But analytic types should be open to the broad conceptual analysis entertained by continentals in their explorations of various approaches to the construction of meaning in the humanistic tradition, and also they should recognize the limitations of logic and language (etc. etc.). I recognize that there are differences, but I find (generally) that these differences should be embraced. To deny overlap is just to view philosophy so narrowly that it is hardly philosophy anymore.

I don't accept the distinction, personally. I think good philosophy is good philosophy. With respect to rigor, I think the some of the most detailed and rigorously articulated philosophy in recent decades has come out of the continental tradition. Paul Ricouer, for instance, is usually thought of as a prominent figure in contemporary continental european thought, but he is conversant with the work of the Vienna Circle, 20th century analytic epistemology, Bertrand Russell, A.N. Whitehead, etc. His three-volume work "Time and Narrative" alone speaks to his erudition. I suppose I am of the opinion that philosophy is best done in this spirit. Both "traditions" have made (and continue to make) meaningful contributions to philosophy. While I lean analytic, I take good work where I find it. Husserl and Gadamer are no slouches either. Levinas is brilliant. I guess I just don't see the meaning in the "divide."

I meant the Grad Cafe philosophy forum.

Just out of curiosity, why is there such a strong tendency toward disliking continental thinkers here?

Touche...

I think you have the wrong opinion of the idea of agreement.

I think you have the wrong opinion of opinions.

I guess that's what one gets for having opinions on stuff.

Nothing has happened. This, it seems to me, is exactly the problem. Wish they'd hurry up and send me my rejection notice... jeez...

If you're open to MA programs, there are many that are still receiving applications. Ohio University, for instance, is accepting applications through March 1st.

I was fortunate to do a BA at a liberal arts school in a small department where 3 of the six professors were analytic guys and the other three were primarily continental thinkers. I lean analytic, but I have a healthy respect for certain thinkers in the continental tradition (esp. Hussurl, Ricouer, Gadamer and Levinas). I tend to feel that the analytic-continental divide is a rather useless way to think about philosophy. To do philosophy that's worth anything I think one ought to be conversant with both traditions.

"Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the women."

Who's Ludlow?

Ha!

I like Plantinga. I challenge you to a duel!

In the words of Edmund Husserl, Hume genius was astounding, but it was not accompanied by an equally astounding philosophy. I just don't think of skeptical philosophy as very interesting. That, ultimately, is just a report of preference, though.

Fair Trade... does the grinder, based on its origins, feel obliged to the categorical imperative?

Historical: David Hume. Contemporary would have to be Alex Rosenberg. My writing sample, in fact, is primarily an argument against the materialism of Rosenberg and the Churchlands.

I was wondering which adult beverages all you applicants out there prefer as a personal prescription for stress management (for those of you who partake in the use of intoxicating beverages, that is). I find that when I'm at a medium level of stress, I go for craft beers. When it gets to be really bad, I go straight for the overproofed bourbons.

I just got a form email from a school I did not apply to asking me to apply. My heart almost stopped because the more reptilian part of my brain thought it was a meaningful email from a school I DID apply to. Damn you, spammers.

I've heard worse ideas.

You have three more of them than many of us.

That was also me! I'm hilarious. And humble.